Chullin 133b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara answers:

here,

this that we learned in the beraita, “he need not mark it,”

with what are we dealing? With the gentile sitting

in the meat shop

on the counter

[where the Jewish butcher sells the meat there, and it is evident that they are partners]. This is not so in the Mishna, which deals with a situation in which he is not sitting in the shop.

The Gemara objects: If so,

correspondingly, with regard to a koen,

as we learned at the beginning of the beraita,

“one who partners with a koen must mark it,” this law too deals with a situation

in which the koen sits

in the shop,

on the counter,

as we explained in the latter clause with regard to the gentile. If so,

why must he mark it?

The Gemara answers: The fact that the koen sits in the shop is not proof that the butcher formed a partnership with him,

for they say

the observers: This koen

is buying meat

[he wants to buy meat].

The Gemara objects: If so,

a gentile also

why does he not have to mark it? For even in this situation

they say

the observers that the gentile

is buying meat,

and he is not forming a partnership with the Jew.

Rather, with what are we dealing here? With a gentile sitting on the money box

[in the place where the butcher puts the money he receives from the buyers], and in this manner it is evident that he is a partner and not merely a buyer.

The Gemara objects: If so,

correspondingly, with regard to a koen

we are also dealing with this situation,

that he sits on the money box,

and if so,

why must he mark it?

The Gemara answers:

They say

the observers that he is truly not a partner, but

he entrusted him

the butcher entrusted the koen with guarding the money in his money box, so that it would not be stolen from him.

The Gemara objects: If so,

a gentile also

we should be concerned that

they say

the observers

he entrusted him

the butcher entrusted him with guarding his money, and in truth he is not a partner.

The Gemara answers: There is no concern that the observers will think so, because

there is no trust in a gentile,

a Jew is not accustomed to entrust a gentile with guarding his money.

And

alternatively, if you wish, say:

In truth, one must say as the explanation above, that the koen and the gentile are sitting in the shop. Nevertheless, one can distinguish, because

an ordinary gentile talks loudly.

If he is a partner, he is accustomed to shout: “Do not sell it for this amount, but for this amount!” And everyone knows that he is his partner. But a koen is reserved, and he does not shout; rather, he relies on the butcher, and there is no proof that he is a partner .

The Master said: And consecrated disqualified animals need not be marked.

Evidently, the matter is evident

when they sell them: that they are consecrated and not unconsecrated; therefore they need not be marked, because everyone knows that they are consecrated and exempt from the gifts.

The Gemara objects:

But did we not learn: Consecrated disqualified animals are sold in a meat market

[in the marketplace]

and slaughtered in a meat market and weighed by the litra,

which shows that they are sold like all unconsecrated animals? If so, the matter is not “evident.”

Rav Adda bar Ahava explained it before Rav Pappa

as referring to what we learned, that they need not be marked—

to those that are sold inside the house.

That is, firstborn and tithe animals, whose monetary value is not consecrated but is given to their owners. Since this is so, they did not permit treating them lightly and selling them in the marketplace in the manner of all unconsecrated animals for his own benefit; rather, he sells them specifically inside the house, even though he loses by doing so, since there are not as many buyers in the house as in the marketplace. If so, it is evident that they are consecrated because he sells them in his house, and therefore he need not mark them. [This is unlike other consecrated disqualified animals, whose redemption money is consecrated in their place: if you did not permit him to sell them in the marketplace, he would not redeem them initially except cheaply, and there would be a loss to the consecration. Therefore, since the matter is not recognizable, for he sells them in the marketplace like all unconsecrated animals, he must mark them].

Rav Huna said:

If a person was

a partner in the head

of an animal but not in its other parts,

he exempts

its owner

from

the gift of

the cheek

alone , and he is liable for the other gifts.

If he was

a partner in the hand

of the animal—

he exempts

the owner

from the foreleg

alone. If he was

a partner in the intestines—

he is exempt from the maw 4.

And Hiyya bar Rav said: Even if he was

another person

a partner

only

in one of them

[of the gifts]—

he is exempt

the owner

from all of them.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If one person said to his fellow:

The head

of the animal

is mine, and the whole

—and all the rest of the animal—

is yours! And even if

he said:

one part in a hundred of the head

is mine— -

he is exempt.

And likewise, if he said:

The hand is mine, and the whole is yours,

and

even one part in a hundred of the hand

is mine—

he is exempt.

And likewise, if he said:

The intestines are mine and the whole is yours,

and

even

only

one part in a hundred

of them is mine—

he is exempt.

Is it not the case

that this which it teaches, “he is exempt,” means

he is exempt from the cheek and liable for all of them,

for all the other gifts? And likewise when he said, “the hand is mine,”

he is exempt from the foreleg and liable for all of them,

and likewise when he said, “the intestines are mine,”

he is exempt from the maw and liable for all of them?

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

in all these cases

he is exempt from all of them!

The Gemara objects: If so, why did we learn merely “he is exempt”?

Let it teach

explicitly,

“he is exempt from all of them”?

Furthermore,

is it not the case that

it was taught

explicitly:

The head is mine and the whole is yours,

and

even one part in a hundred of the head

is mine—

he is exempt from the cheek and liable for all of them?

And the conclusion of the Gemara is:

a refutation of Hiyya bar Rav,

who said, “he is exempt from all of them”—

a refutation! Rav Hisda said: This teaching

below

misled him

[it misled him],

Hiyya bar Rav,

and caused him to think that he is exempt from all the gifts.

For it was taught: There are twenty-four priestly gifts, and all of them were given to Aaron and his sons by means of a general statement and a specific statement.

As it is stated: “All the holy things of the children of Israel I have given to you”—this is a general statement, and afterward it says: “And this shall be yours from the most holy things, from the fire, and so on,” and Scripture specifies each of the gifts—this is the specific statement.

That is, first it says “all the holy things,” which is a general statement, and afterward it says “and this shall be yours from the most holy things, from the fire, and so on,” and the verse explains each of the gifts—which is the specific statement.

And

it is written in this passage:

“a covenant of salt

forever,” that is, just as the covenant made with salt—that it should not spoil—does not cease, so too this covenant shall not cease.

And they expounded:

Whoever fulfills them

—who gives the gifts—

it is as though he fulfilled the general statement and the specific statement, that is, the generalities and particulars in the Torah 5,

and

it is as though he offered all the offerings, concerning which

“a covenant of salt” is stated.

And whoever transgresses them,

who does not give them,

it is as though he transgresses the general statement and the specific statement

in the Torah,

and

it is as though he did not offer the offerings, concerning which

“a covenant of salt” is stated.

And these are

the twenty-four gifts:

ten

of them were given to be eaten

in the Temple

inside the courtyard,

four

of them are eaten

in Jerusalem, and ten

of them are eaten

in the provinces.

And these are

the ten

that are

in the Temple: a sin-offering, a bird sin-offering, a definite guilt-offering, a provisional guilt-offering, and the communal peace-offerings,

that is, the lambs of the Festival of Weeks,

and the log of oil of the leper,

that is, what remains after the gifts were given on his ear lobe and thumbs and big toes,

and the two loaves, and the showbread, and the remainder of the meal-offerings, and the omer meal-offering.

And these are

the four

that are eaten

in Jerusalem: the firstborn,

that is, an unblemished firstborn,

and the first fruits, and that which is raised from

the

thanksgiving-offering,

that is, the breast and thigh and four loaves that were given to the koen,

and

that which is raised

from the nazirite’s ram,

that is, the cooked foreleg, one loaf, and one wafer [and “that which is raised from the thanksgiving-offering and from the nazirite’s ram” are considered one matter, because both are raised from offerings of lesser sanctity],

since both are raised from offerings of lesser sanctity,

and the hides of consecrated animals

of burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and guilt-offerings, which are given to the koen.

And these are

the ten

that are

in the provinces,

which are given to the koen in all the cities of Israel:

teruma, the tithe-teruma, dough-offering, the first shearing, and the priestly gifts,

that is, the foreleg, cheeks, and maw,

and

five selaim of

the redemption of the son, and

a lamb of

the redemption of the firstborn donkey, and an inherited field

that its owner consecrated but did not redeem, and the Temple treasurer sold it; and when it leaves the purchaser’s possession at the Jubilee, like an inherited field, its law is that it is divided among the koanim of the watch whose turn the Jubilee occurred in.

And a field of devoted property

[when a person said, “This field is devoted property,” which is given to a koen],

and the robbery of a convert,

where the robber swore falsely to him and confessed after the convert’s death, in which case the principal and the fifth are given to the koen.

The Gemara returns to explain Rav Hisda’s words, “the teaching misled Hiyya bar Rav”:

He,

Hiyya bar Rav,

thought: Since the tan­ nay counted them

—

the

three

gifts as one

gift, and did not count them as three gifts in the enumeration of the twenty-four gifts—

they are one.

And if one becomes liable for one of them, he becomes liable for all of them; and if he is exempt from one, he is exempt from all of them.

That is not so!

The fact that he counted them as one matter in the enumeration of the gifts is not because their law is as one, because

is it so that

the

portion raised from the thanksgiving-offering and the nazirite’s ram, which the tan­ nay counted

as

one

in the enumeration of the gifts,

are one because they are one?!

They are certainly not one matter!

Rather, since they are similar to one another—

he counted them as one, and

the same law applies to the gifts:

since they are similar to one another,

he counted them as one,

but they are never considered one matter .

They raised a dilemma before them:

A kohen said to an Israelite butcher, before the slaughter of the kohen’s animal:

The head

of the animal shall be

yours,

so that you will purchase it,

and all of it—

the rest of the animal—

mine; what is the law?

Is the Israelite obligated to give the gifts [the cheeks], or not?

And the sides of the dilemma are: Is it that

according to

the parts of the animal

we proceed with regard to the obligation,

namely, the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw,

and

behold,

the obligation is upon the Israelite,

for the cheeks are on the head, and he is obligated in the gifts?

Or perhaps, according to the essence

of the

animal we proceed, and the essence

of the

animal belongs to the kohen!

Come and hear: A non-Jew and a kohen who entrusted their flocks to an Israelite,

having made him their agent to shear them,

he is exempt

the Israelite from the first of the fleece.

And likewise,

one who purchases the fleece of the flock of a non-Jew,

even before it was shorn from the animal,

is exempt

the purchaser

from the first of the fleece. And this is a stringency in the foreleg, the cheeks, and the maw, more than in the first of the fleece,

for one who purchases the gifts from a kohen before slaughter is obligated in the gifts.

Conclude from it: We proceed according to the obligation!

For here the Israelite purchased from the kohen only the gifts, while the essence of the animal remained the kohen’s, and nevertheless he is obligated in the gifts.

Conclude from it!

We learned in our Mishna:

And if he said to him

the kohen to the Israelite, “I am selling you the animal

except for the gifts, he is exempt”

the Israelite

from the gifts.